Advice - What size for dual monitors?

[aphex]

I should be able to start working remotely from home shortly and my work is much easier with dual monitors (we all use dual monitors at work) Previously had a dual monitor setup with dual 17's years ago. Currently using a single 24" that i plan to use in another system, so i'm in the market for a new matched pair.

I thought about getting two 24's, but I think thats gonna be way too big for what i need, so i'm now looking at dual 20's or 22's. I primarily use word, excel and browse the web for work, but it involves near constant swapping back and forth from each monitor as I build my reports, so going too big may be an annoyance I fear.

Anyone here with either (or have used either combo) care to comment? I wonder if the 22's side by side may be too big as well.

 

[skulkingghost]

22s are great, I have 2 22"s a 30 and a 19 and the 22's are the best in terms of size / resolution for dual monitoring.

 

[zerocool84]

I went from 19" to 23" and now I think that's too small. 24" is a great size and I wouldn't get anything smaller but that's just me.

 

[TheStu]

I have a mismatched pair on my desk, a 22" (1920*1080) and a 19" (1280*1024). Though my favorite ever has been when I had dual 24s in the lab at school, very nice.

 

[RebateMonger]

If you are going to use "widescreen" monitors, then 22-inch monitors are good. There's a LOT of surface area there. A friend has a pair of 22-inch Envision monitors, and is very happy with them.

I personally have a pair of five-year-old "non-widescreen" 19-inch monitors, which are fine for me. "Widescreen" 19-inchers are, in my opinion, not tall enough. "Widescreen" 22- or 23-inchers are about the same height as a "non-widescreen" 19-inch monitor.

It's best if you can get identical monitors that have very narrow side panels. You want the effect to be like a single, extra-wide panel.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

To be honest, I think 2 widescreen monitors is just way too much horizontal area to focus on effectively. Before I took my setup apart for house renovations I had a 19" 1280x1024 with a 21.5" 1920x1080 primary, and I think that worked very well; the widescreen took care of movies and games, and stuff, while the secondary was much more useful than a second widescreen would probably have been. The only addition I would probably make to this setup is adding another 19" onto the other side.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

To be honest, I think 2 widescreen monitors is just way too much horizontal area to focus on effectively.

You're not focused on the whole thing at once. More screen real estate is ALWAYS better.

 

[Tsavo]

I have a 23 and considered adding another 23, but went with a 19 and the setup is almost too wide.

 

[aphex]

I have a 23 and considered adding another 23, but went with a 19 and the setup is almost too wide.

Thats kinda what i'm worried about, if its too wide, i'm just gonna be annoyed at how much travel my head is gonna have to make as i constantly dark back between each of them. I'll run to BB today and slide some together and see how i like em.

I'll say one thing, it sure is hard to find monitors with super thin bezels. Also, I was checking out the dell 2210's (on sale for $139) and was surprized to see they aren't VESA compatible, as i would like to get a single dual arm stand.

 

[dawza]

I have dual 20" 4:3 (1600x1200) monitors for my workstation and actually find it to be more comfortable for general use than my home setup, which is dual 24" (1920x1200) widescreens. With the non-widescreen 20" panels, I can see edge-to-edge without moving my head, which I cannot do with the 24" setup.

That said, there are times when the extra real-estate comes in handy, and if I had the chance to upgrade to dual 30" 25x16 screens, there is not a chance in hell that I would refuse.

No matter what, I would suggest you try to put together a setup that gives you a full 1200 vertical pixels. Given your concerns, 22" 1680x1050 panels should probably be avoided, since you take up more horizontal space than 20" 1600x1200, but lose out on overall real estate- might as well move up to 24" 1920x1200.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe stack widescreens vertically?

 

[ViviTheMage]

2 x Dell 2209WA

Perfect, 24" might almost be too big...

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You're not focused on the whole thing at once.

That is why I don't like using 2 widescreens. I don't want to have to constantly shift my eyes or move my head to focus on the two monitors; it's a strain on my eyes and it wastes time, especially when you're doing the spot the difference thing on different documents, or you're following instructions.

More screen real estate is ALWAYS better.

So you're saying that having a monitor setup where the row of monitors stretches all around you would be somehow better than just having 2 or 3 monitors in a row?

I have dual 20" 4:3 (1600x1200) monitors for my workstation and actually find it to be more comfortable for general use than my home setup, which is dual 24" (1920x1200) widescreens. With the non-widescreen 20" panels, I can see edge-to-edge without moving my head, which I cannot do with the 24" setup.

I feel vindicated.

 

[dawza]

One other thing to add- dual 1920x1200 is enough horizontal resolution, IMO, to comfortably work with two window open in tandem on a single screen (Windows 7 is great for this). 1600 pixels is just short of the comfort zone. I find that the dual 24" monitors are more practical for writing papers and such, since I often have two browser windows open, a word document, and my reference manager.

However, when I process data (spreadsheets), I almost never span across the dual 24" displays, because it is just absurdly wide. 1920 horizontal pixels is close to the maximum my eyes/brain can process without losing track of my positioning. I could always span a fraction of the second 24" monitor, but the bezel interference makes that somewhat impractical. On the dual 20" 4:3 screens, I generally span 1.5 monitors as needed. For day-to-day use, I always run both 20" screens at the same time; for the dual 24" setup, I always run a single monitor unless I am doing some serious work.

Finally, it is much easier to add a third screen, if needed, with a dual 20" 4:3 setup, simply due to space constraints imposed by a widescreen setup. If your workflow is more efficient when you separate your various tasks onto individual monitors, a triple 20" 4:3 arrangement is tough to beat.

I am not trying to say that one path is better than the other- it simply depends on what you anticipate using the monitors for.

P.S. If you are looking for multiple monitor stands, Chief Mfg is tough to beat. I have been using their stationary dual monitor desktop stands as well as their pneumatic arms for years, and they have been absolutely rock solid.

 

[gorobei]

go for 2 portrait mode monitors in side by side span. much better for word and excel.

if you do, you'll need better quality monitors(non-TN) to avoid massive color shift. if you can still get the deal on dell2209wa(e-ips) that would be my recommendation.

 

[larslake]

Monitors are the heart and soul of a computer. I'm very fond of my paired 20 in. standard screen size medical monitors. I think 2 Dell 2209wa (22in. eIPS) monitors would be hard to beat.

 

[goobernoodles]

It really depends on what you're doing. I run two 19" wide-screens at work, host machine on one and a VM on the other. Because I usually focus on one or the other, I could definitely handle having two 22" wide's, but if I was using all of the area at once, I doubt I'd want anything wider than what I have now.